[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[David Morey]

Hi DMB

I'll take incoherent back for a second,  you say DQ is full of content,  I say it is full of pattern, let's say it is full of X, now why is content so much better a word than pattern, what rules it out? Is there a better word for X? I have tried the split between DQ and SQ as pre-conceptual patterns and conceptual patterns,  you don't like that,  what about dynamic patterns versus static patterns? 

Is the moon (a concept) round (a concept)? Let us look and see, well it is white (a percept) but does it fill all my experience? No. The white is surrounded by black (a percept). So the moon has a shape (a pattern caused by the percepts not the concepts) and this shape is round (a concept). For you the shape-pattern of the moon is a concept,  for me round is a concept but the perceived shape in our experience is not a concept it is just a specific shape that we then come to notice and describe as round and the moon,  we can point to it before we call it the moon or describe it,  other people can see where in this common experience we are pointing and see this pattern in their experience too,  if it is not a pattern how can they turn to see something and suddenly realise it is there, if concepts are required to turn percepts into patterns how do we experience new things that come along and surprise us? Do concepts require work to make them or do you think they just pop into existence prior to culture and language? I just cannot make sense of what you think concepts mean?

David M

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [MD] Static Patterns Rock!
From: David Morey <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
CC: 

Hi DMB

Let me think,  largely from you and your selective quoting. So you are saying DQ has no patterns but is full of content,  but you cannot offer any description of that content…  sounds pretty confused to me,  perhaps you can help,  how do you know DQ is full of content? What is your evidence? I agree DQ is full of content,  I call it shapes,  colours,  patterns, etc.

By the way why can you only argue with my position by bending or exaggerating it? I do try to stick to what you write,  incoherent though it seems to me.

David M